Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Iran warns Israel of a multi-front war

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Israel and the West of a military strike against his country as the debate in Israel over the possibility of military action intensified over the weekend.
In an interview with the Egyptian state-owned newspaper Al-Akhbar, Ahmadinejad accused Israel and the United States of building international support for a military strike, and said that "the arrogant should know that Iran will not allow them to take any action against it."
It comes just a few days before the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to release a report on Iran's nuclear program. Previous reports have focused on Iran's uranium enrichment program, which it says are solely for civilian purposes. The latest report is to focus on allegations that Iran plans to use the material to build a nuclear warhead, an accusation that Iran has always rejected.
Speculation is growing that Israel may be planning a pre-emptive strike against Iran. The Haaretz newspaper reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has support from Defense Minister Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for such a strike.
Barak was in London over the weekend, which Israeli media interpreted as evidence of the government's desire to build international support for military action against Iran. The Guardian newspaper reported that the British military was already preparing for an attack.

There's another great article from FrontPageMag titled, "Will Israel Invade Gaza?" In it the writer offers some pros and cons to an Israeli offensive. With the Iranian threat of a multi-front war, I think Israel should strike when it suits them. 
Not surprisingly, so long as Israel makes no decisive move in Gaza, the strategic threat only grows. Smuggling has been a free-for-all since the fall of Hosni Mubarak. Gaza’s rockets can now reach the Tel Aviv area while ever more sophisticated and dangerous weaponry flows in from Libya (another “Arab spring” liability), Iran, and elsewhere.
Also not surprisingly, in this situation, voices in Israel are calling to reoccupy Gaza and put an end to the threat. While some of these come from outside the government, an official in the upper echelon, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, hasspoken openly of “toppling Hamas from power and reestablishing control over the southern Strip” where the smuggled weapons enter. Hamas being, of course, the ruler of Gaza, Islamic Jihad a still-weaker rival.
So what’s Israel waiting for?
As usual, though the issue may seem simple, it’s not. Israel’s helmsmen have to take account of larger regional realities and possible repercussions, a mix of pros and cons.
Some of the cons of reinvading Gaza:
* Plausible rumors have been flying that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have decided to attack Iran’s nuclear program within a year or so. If true, they may want to save political capital for such a move—certain to be unpopular in the world, at least at first—and not squander it on an embroilment in Gaza. Israel’s fellow democracies—let alone the Islamic bloc and its allies—never look kindly upon Israeli military moves, demanding quick ceasefires and “restraint on both sides.” If Jerusalem is contemplating action against Iranian nukes, it may prefer to the let the smaller problem of Gaza fester.
* It’s frequently reported that Jerusalem is reluctant to launch a campaign in Gaza for fear of jeopardizing what’s left of relations with post-Mubarak Egypt. If the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is hanging by a thread, it’s said that a Gaza offensive could finally sever the thread—or ignite a firestorm of sentiment among the Egyptian masses that would only further strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements.
* Dore Gold points out that the real force behind the recent rocket fire is not Islamic Jihad but its sponsor, Iran. The latter’s “priority is to save Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria,” and TV images “of Israeli-Palestinian exchanges of fire provide a useful distraction” and “might force the Arab League to reengage with the Palestinian issue, instead of pressuring Assad to make the reforms they are demanding.” In other words, by entering Gaza, Israel could be playing into Iran’s hands and helping it rescue its ally Assad. Paradoxically, though, Assad could be preferable for Israel to a radical Sunni regime that might replace him—only adding to the complexity.
And as for some pros:
* Again, if Israel is indeed gearing up to strike Iran, that would likely ignite a multifront war involving Gaza and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon (and possibly Syria as well). Reoccupying Gaza, then, whatever the political, economic, and other possible costs entailed, would have the advantage of removing a potential front in such a war.

* Likewise regarding Egypt, the argument can run in both directions: if Muslim Brotherhood-driven radicalization is in any case around the corner, it would be safer to invade Gaza now, before the danger of Egypt joining the fray grows.
* Israel clearly cannot indefinitely tolerate a terror-statelet abutting its south, and the longer it waits to tackle the problem, the stronger the statelet grows and the higher the costs of an engagement.
That list does not claim to be exhaustive, and one has to take into account that Jerusalem is privy to intelligence. Still, based on the list, the “pros” seem to have it. Indeed, Egypt has reportedly warned the Gaza terrorist groups to hold their fire because Israel is very close to invading.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...